Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Undefined, Mar 30, 2014.
Hawking would disagree with that now. A black hole isn't at all black.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well, let's see using the transcript you provided.
Your claim: "Only Sean's work/results give a real confirmation of flatness to infinity beyond the observable horizon"
Sean Carroll says: "WMAP for the first time had that resolution"
So, Carroll says that it's WMAP's work, not Carroll's work.
That's one piece of delusion.
Your claim: Sean Carroll used the term "energy-space". Specifically, "Abd have you finally bothered to check what Sean Carroll actually said in that BBC doco? The communications MEDIUM doesn't change what he did/said about his finding that the universal energy-space is flat to infinity beyond observational horizon."
Your transcript: missing that term.
For the rest of the delusion, one would have to imagine, as undefined apparently does, that the "flatness" that Carroll is talking about means that there is no curvature anywhere and that this means that GR is false. Of course, anyone who bothers to read a little about the WMAP (see one of my previous links) would see that this conclusion is false.
Supporting Farsight is pretty pathetic, but this is worse.
Duplicate post deleted.
I would guess that anyone interested in science would know that WMAP and the data received was the prime reason for the view of a Flat universe and consequently infinite.
And having listed to Carroll numerous times, I don't believe for one minute that he would claim anything else.
I also totally agree that anyone that interprets those findings as evidence against the validity of GR, must have a huge agenda to blinker him/her from the reality of the situation.
Good morning, Phys. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What are you on about, Phys? Why chop the quote like that and build a straw man around it?
If you had seen that doco, you would realize that that "For the fist time WMAP had that resolution" was referring to the FEATURES he later used for his triangulation exercise that he spoke of and gave results on in that doco. See? That sort of straw man misconstruing by you is what then brings more trolls by others into it following YOUR misconstruings rather than actually reading and understanding properly what was said by whom IN FACT and not in your imagined 'interpretations'.
Will you get it once and for all...that Sean USED the 2003 WMAP 'features' LATER in 2012 for his exercise as described in that doco? No-one has said anything about him working ON WMAP in that doco, nor have I said anything like that either. OK? Have you GOT that straight now, mate? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As for the 'energy-space' term, I already made clear it is a term I COINED more than a decade ago to REPLACE the misleading 'space-time' term. I use it in all cases when describing the universal substrate in which, from which, and through which and back to which all LOCALIZED/TRANSIENT 'energy-space PROCESSING 'features' arise and subside. IT has been used by OTHER MAINSTREAMERS lately more than ever, and is the ONLY way to effectively describe the universal substrate in real terms not abstract mathematical construct terms. OK? Sean said 'space', and I used 'energy-space' to describe it in my terms, not abstract terms. I made that clear before that it was MY term, not Sean's. OK?
No, no, no, mate. The local energy-space PROCESSING involves 'curvatures' in local processing regions of energy-space via gravity and matter topology affecting/connecting matter and gravity processes/features to the underlying 'energy-space' universal substrate. I already made that clear. I already explained that the underlying substrate was EUCLIDEAN (as confirmed by Sean's results) ant that the LOCALIZED regions had all sorts of NON-EUclidean geometry because it involves the DYNAMICS and PROCESSES and FEATURES IN/OF that substrate. See? The non-Euclidean aspects of energy-space are ONLY LOCALIZED EFFECTS OF PROCESSES in that region...and not of the overall underlying Euclidean energy-space as a whole to infinite extent. You know, much like the oceans are 'flat' except where localized processes affect that and create localized/transient non-flat 'features' (like waves, solitons, whirlpools, etc etc).
Anyhow, I haven't time to argue against chopped quotes and misconstruings and split hairs and semantics etc 'tactics'. I leave you to figure it all out for yourself once you actually find and view that relevant BBC doco. Cheers! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@PhysBang and everyone. To better understand why I coined that 'energy-space' term to replace the 'abstract 'space-time' term, here is a relevant wiki excerpt that clearly explains the problem with purely abstract and UN-PHYSICAL 'spacetime' coordinate math construct:
The highlighted bits tell precisely why TWO OR MORE EVENTS/FEATURES (ie, 'particles' in the above context) MUST BE INCLUDED above and beyond the otherwise purely abstract and meaningless 'space-time' construct in order to give any REAL PHYSICAL MEANING to 'space-time' descriptions/coordinates etc.
That is why the 'energy-space' construct is more real and why I coined it, because it implicitly already involves the dynamics/processes of REAL 'energy-space' FEATURES/EVENTS as part of the real 'energy-space' construct! (I can't say more at this stage, because it will form part of the complete and consistent REAL maths-physics ToE to be published as soon as it is ready.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I trust that this suffices to explain where I am coming from? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am merely pointing out exactly what you wrote. I'm not taking the things you wrote out of context. I am not misrepresenting what you wrote in any way.
You consistently said that Sean Carroll was single-handed in delivering a flat-universe, against GR, energy-space theory. That you have shown this to be untrue is sad for you, but great for those who want to understand science. Not did I misrepresent the documentary.
Having read many of the WMAP papers, I know that they did it and he did not. You are free to read them as well. Or to read any of Carroll's papers, none of which claim to have done something that others have done.
If you weren't clearly so delusional, I would have to say that you are lying at this point. However, you are merely sad.
SO now, as opposed to when you made the claim before, you realize that he is not using your science. Good to know something gets through the fog.
Until you take the time to read what Carroll writes, we have to write your science off as delusion.
What? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I only pointed out what Sean clearly said/explained in that ONE BBC doco. No more, no less. And what he said/explained was that, and I quote again
So how on Earth could you keep telling yourself I am the one "deluded" and 'sad", when it is you trying to bring in all sorts of OTHER things which I did not say anything about?
Just in case you still think I am the one "deluded" and "sad" and not you, here is also what Saul Perlmutter said immediately after that bit, and I quote
So was Saul also "deluded" and "sad" as well as Sean in that doco?
Mate, please stick to reality and avoid whatever it is you are trying instead. The facts, and Sean and Saul speak for themselves in that doco. Whatever you else you are having difficulties with is between you and THEM, not me. They said what they said. I have no more to say than that. If you still don't want to accept what they said in that doco, then you can write them and quote the details of that BBC DOCO already provided, and let them explain to YOU directly what they meant or didn't mean. OK? Thanks.
I lave it to you and Sean to sort it out between you. Please no more insults and distractions/denials of the obvious facts in evidence via that BBC doco, which is ALL I pointed out for your info. No more; no less. Good luck with Sean!
No more time to waste on this with you, mate. If you can't get things straight when the details were presented to you on a silver platter, then it's your problem to sort out with whomever you disagree on what was said by whom in that doco. Cheers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The reason I do not accept your claim that Carroll and Perlmutter reject general relativity is because, having read their papers, I know that they do not. I suggest you confront your own delusions and read their work.
Again, what? What claim? I just directed you and everyone to that BBC doco (details provided already) for your info. No more; no less. The rest is inference and implication in its own right, irrespective of what I may think either way.
Please either address those implications/inferences from what Sean/Saul say in that doco, or just stop with your own 'framing' and 'distractions' tactics based on your own misconstruings of what they said, not me, as to what the implications/inferences are. Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why lie about this now?
I just quoted what you wrote. Anyone can go back and look at what you wrote. Are you re-writing your own memories? Go back and look at what you wrote.
OK, the facts:
1. Carroll pointed out that the work was done by WMAP.
2. Carroll pointed out how, according to GR, the overall geometry of the universe can be gleaned from measuring the angles of large triangles.
3. Perlmutter points out that, according to GR, in a universe with triangles of this sort, the universe is infinite in extent.
You introduced this research with the following ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3173796&viewfull=1#post3173796 ):
Unsurprisingly, you missed that the observations measure what the large-scale structure of the universe happens to be, not what it fundamentally is. The WMAP team assumes General Relativity, which assumes that the presence of energy determines the geometry of spacetime.
You wrote the following ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3175712&viewfull=1#post3175712 ):
You now admit that Carroll has said nothing about "energy-space".
You wrote the following ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3175660&viewfull=1#post3175660 ):
But since he used the WMAP results, the ones that rely on the assumption that there is an overall geometry that may be determined differently locally (a part of the standard "Big Bang" theory that is part of General Relativity), then one can't say that Carroll's work supports your conclusion.
You wrote the following ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3176082&viewfull=1#post3176082 ):
So since Carroll is straight-up using WMAP, it would seem that he's riddled with the same errors.
You also wrote ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3174152&viewfull=1#post3174152 ):
So, since you admit that Carroll doesn't know anything about "energy-space", then he can hardly have proved anything about it. To say nothing of the fact that the WMAP work that Carroll relies upon uses a cosmological constant.
Hi Phys. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What? I only agreed with the implications/inferences of what Sean Carroll had to say about the result as described by him. Period. It doesn't matter what I agree with or not. It is what Sean said that has its implications/inferences from which you can make your own mind up.
And it was his WMAP USE for his exercise that was the point about minimizing unnecessary assumptions from theories like BB and Inflation etc. That was the point of the exercise, that it is NOT 'riddled with the same errors' as the other WMAP treatments/exercises you and rpenner spoke about. OK?
And the results don't lie. The space (I called it energy-space for the reasons stated already) is EUCLIDEAN for as far as can be measured, and hence, as Sean and Saul have stated, it probably is flat to infinity beyond the observable universal volume.
Whatever your and others' arguments with his conclusions/results in that BBC doco exercise, it's between you and Sean. I happen to agree with his conclusions. Period. If you and others don't agree, then it's between you and Sean. OK?
And the localized energy states affecting LOCAL regions is what I already explained as the difference between the overall underlying space and the localized space DYNAMICS and PROCESSING of the ENERGY in SPACE REGIONS....which is WHY I use the "ENERGY-SPACE" term to encompass both the local and the overall extent of universal energy-space substrate which locally may be NON-Euclidean due to local processing energy-space features etc, but overall Euclidean to infinity as Sean et al say.
So what's your beef, mate? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"How Can real energy 'permeate space-time', when space-time is just maths construct?"
The BB was an evolution of space and time, as we know them, plus inherent energies [CC/DE] from whence gravity and the other known forces sprung, as temperatures and pressures allowed, followed by matter.
Space, time, space/time, Universe, gravity, matter, energy are all real with each depending on the other for existence. [see Sten Odenwald at NASA]
To deny the reality of one, is to deny the reality of all.
And finally, like a heap of other Alternative theory threads that have been posted of late, they all show exceptional arrogance of the person proclaiming them by their 100% certainty without question, and as is obviously also evident in the title of this thread also, with the immediate claim that space/time is no more than a mathematical construct.
This immediatley goes against the first point in the alternative theories thread here......
Of course in most cases, most of the other points are also ignored including the essential scientific methodology and peer review.
And that makes these claims worth zilch.
The blithely oblivious troll in question is again directed to the Sean Carroll interview quoted in post #78 (in the "Timeless vs Time" thread), where he clearly argues there is no beginnings but a multiverse in his opinion. So the BB/Inflation is an Hypothesis of an 'occurrence' in a long continuation of infinite number of 'occurrences'. Making the troll's arguments a moot thing. There is no 'time' unless there is 'occurrences' PROCESSING of ENERGY features in a SPACE to create events from which 'time' is derived and made meaningful and useful in human analytical constructs like 'space-time' math modeling abstraction from the energy-space events/processing occurrences. If the troll in question does not understand what Sean Carroll himself was just quoted as understanding in post #78 (in the "Timeless vs Time" thread), then the troll is NOT in 'the mainstream' understandings umbrella. So, troll, it's raining real facts from mainstream all over, and yet here you are oblivious to it all, and making your repeated 'beliefs/claims posts without a clue. If you don't read and understand properly, then why clutter up the threads like you do, with your repetitive 'beliefs' and claims which clearly go against the mainstream as already quoted amply and more than once now? You are clearly NOT 'defending mainstream', but merely using that excuse/mantra as 'cover' for posting mindless 'links' and 'excerpts which do not address the mainstream points already posted which support Maxila et al and NOT you and Grump (again, read post # 78, in the "Timeless vs Time" thread, and understand what Sean Carroll is saying, and then stop your trolling and cluttering repetitive philosophy/beliefs based 'versions' of what 'time' is).
I'm not getting into another slanging match with you undefined.
Your personal objectives are obvious. I would have thought you may have learnt something... :shrug:
Your previous posts are as your others...crap....I'll let others deal with them.
The troll in question is directed to post #267, wherein the bolded and red highlighted parts of the last paragraph in that "Hole Argument" refutes all the trolls' beliefs and claims about 'space-time' being anything more than a math modeling abstract construct which needs information from events/particles to make descriptions/coordinates meaningful at all. If the troll in question still can't read and understand that properly, then it's clear that the troll has nothing but opinion and belief and nothing else to post in his repetitive meaningless cluttering posts which do not actually address the points that mainstream have made as well as Maxila et al. Good luck, troll.
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
If space exists, what is it?
This is the single most important question in modern physics. Einstein himself said that so far as his general relativity is concerned, space ( actually space-time) and the gravitational field are the SAME THINGS. We see it as something that is empty because, in modern language, we cannot see the quantum particles called gravitons out of which it is 'manufactured'. We exist much like the raisins in a bread, surrounded by the invisible but almost palpable 'dough' of the gravitational field. In many respects there is no difference between the field that we are embedded in and the apparently solid matter out of which we are made. Even at the level of quarks, over 95 percent of the 'matter' that makes up a 100 kg person is simply locked up in the energy of the gluonic fields out of which protons are fashioned. The rest is a gift from the way quarks and electrons interact with a field called the Higgs field which permeates space. We are, really and truly, simply another form of the gravitational field of the universe, twisted by the Big Bang into a small family of unique particle states.
What is the relationship between space and time?
Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.
Separate names with a comma.